>> good morning. this meeting will now come to order. this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm supervisor breed, the chair of the committee. and to my right is supervisor tang, the vice-chair and president david chiu, the committee clerk is alicia miller. and i'd also like to thank bill dill on and jesse larsen of sfgov-tv and so far staffing this meeting. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure so silence all cell phones and electronic

device. completed speaker cards and any documents to be included as sparta of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on may 20 board of supervisors meeting unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. can you please call item number 1? >> item number 1, ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the committee on city workforce alignment, to give the committee responsibility for planning and coordinating the city's workforce development programs, and to make other changes to the procedures governing the planning and implementation of workforce development programs. ~ implementation. >> okay, president chiu. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, supervisor tang. thank you to members of the public for being with us this morning. colleagues, today i'm asking you to consider legislation that i've authored to help better coordinate our city's tens of millions of dollars of workforce development programs. with our economy, we need to be sure we're all sharing in this growth and work opportunities. and to do this, we know we need to strengthen our city's workforce system so that more san franciscans can build skills, find new jobs, and share in our growth. we also have a responsibility to ensure that we are investing

in this large sum of workforce investment dollars since nearly two-thirds of the funds are from local sources. you may recall that last year i asked our city's budget analyst to give us an update on the recommendations from eight years ago, a comprehensive management audit in 2006 of our city's workforce systems. we had thought when we [speaker not understood] the audit that we had $30 million or so of workforce monies that we were deciding to try to spend every year. turns out that figure is closer to 7 million, precisely it's about 67-1/2 million dollars of workforce monies. in that review it was found that very few of the recommendations from the audit from eight years ago were actually implement and had that while our city code requires coordination and centralization of workforce development programs, in actuality we haven't been doing that. city departments have been independently setting policies for their own programs without any coordination with other departments. it turns out that while there are three departments that serve about 70% of our

workforce clients, oewd, hsa and dcyf, there are some 14 departments that say they administer some sort of workforce development program. given all of the departments involved, the report concluded that since we have been lacking a city-wide assessment, we need one. we need an analysis of labor demand around town. we need a map of our existing programs and standardized performance measures. and what i'd like to do, colleagues, is first invite [speaker not understood] campbell from the budget office to give a brief presentation about their findings and then i'd like to summarize our legislation. ms. campbell. >> good morning, chair breed, president chiu, supervisor tang. [speaker not understood] campbell from the legislative analyst and budget analyst's office. i have a brief presentation here.

so, president chiu's request, we did sort of go back and reevaluate what we had found in our 2007 management audit of the city's workforce development system. as you see from the slide here, in fiscal year 13-14, the city-wide budget was nearly $70 million. about $50 million of that was funding through the three major departments, office of economic and workforce development, human services agency, and department of children youth and their families. in our 2000 management audit we had found that the city's workforce development system was fragmented, that there was very little coordination. we found no performance measures, no sort of outcome to be able to show that the individuals being served by the program, in fact, were finding

jobs and moving towards economic self-sufficiency. so, at that time we recommended that there be changes to the administrative code that really define the role of the board of supervisors in term of oversight of the program, define the roles and responsibility of the office of economic workforce development and the work force investment san francisco. and i should say that before we started this audit, the budget already approved the creation of the workforce development division in the office of economic and workforce development and their role was to really reconstitute the oversight body, workforce investment san francisco which overseeseses the federal workforce investment act funds. subsequent to the audit the role of that department changed quite a bit and it was rather becoming sort of a policy making body, they became a program making body and sort of changed how they were able to provide -- to do work. the other part of it is that we felt that the code should show

sort of simple planning coordination by the city departments. when we went back and looked in 2013, we found key provisions of the administrative code had not been implemented and part of it is economic workforce and development doesn't have the authority to tell other departments how to spend their money, how to allocate their resources. many of these departments have their own funding streamses and their own mandates and have no real incentive to sort of centralize budgeting and oversight. several key provisions, we found that there were no performance measures. sort of standardized across the city. at the transit we were reviewing the mayor's office had begun a performance score card for workforce development. so, but we concluded that section 30 as it's now written cannot really be effectively implemented. so, we recommended changes to do away with sort of the

centralized planning and budgeting and [speaker not understood] more of a policy function. that defines the goals of workforce development, how these programs benefit the city, the priority for funding allocations, and setting up program performance measures. and one of the things you'll hear, we heard a lot in discussion was about the performance measures, is each of these programs is serving different populations and have different program goals. but in fact, when we reviewed performance measures that departments currently use we found there were a lot of standard measures already. so, one of our key recommendations, then, was to set up a city-wide workforce development planning committee. this committee would be comprised of a representative from the mayor's office, a representative from the board as well as representatives from the three major departments that provide workforce development, economic workforce development, hsa, and dcyf. other departments could be included if the committee

decided it was appropriate. we thought it was important to create a multi-year strategic plan. this [speaker not understood] is really not a strategic plan that addresses all city policy and that there be annual updates that strategic plan, and that was a key piece to this because one of the things we are hearing is that when the board appropriates funds in the june -- in the budget, they don't actually have sort of a list of priorities in how the funding priorities should be allocated. so, that is sort of an overview of what we found in that report. if you have any questions. >> colleagues? okay, thank you, ms. campbell. i want to thank you and your colleagues for your work on this audit. so, colleagues, very briefly, a summary of the legislation i want to take a moment to also thank supervisor cohen for her work in this area and for her co-sponsorship of this legislation. the primary heart of the legislation is to create a coordination body as recommended by the budget analyst office and remove unworkable provisions in

chapter 30 and create a committee on workforce align many. -- alignment. [speaker not understood] that would be oewd, hsa, dcyf, puc and dpw to come together to put forth a city-wide workforce plan which includes an assessment of our city's anticipated workforce needs and opportunities for the next five years as well as a strategy for meeting identified needs. this would be significant as the first time the city would ever have a workforce development program from all funding sources. now, there already is a workforce development plan for the federal workforce investment act funding, but there has been no coherent picture for all funding sources. this new plan which would be updated annually would also include goals and strategies for all workforce services, a projection of the funding needed to achieve these goals and performance metrics. this new approach would retain the decision making about workforce development at the developmental level and ensure there is a coherent city-wide picture of the services to be

provided, target populations, budgets, and outcome measures. the second portion of the leg asian has to do with the composition of the workforce development community advisory committee. our office worked closely with nonprofit providers in the workforce development area as well as from city staff and heard that our city planning can be better enhanced if the members on this advisory body were higher level decision-makers and organizations providing workforce services. my legislation would elevate the membership level to executive directors or chief officers or designees, increasing number of members from 7 to 8 and giving the mayor the ability to appoint half of the members which is commensurate with almost all other similar bodies in the city. the date for this new advisory committee to go into effect would be october 1st of this year and i want to thank the cbo providers that worked with my office as well as with the members of the existing advisory committee for, for the work we have done together on this. with us at this time, what i'd like to do is invite up rhonda

simmons from oewd to make any brief remarks and i also want to just mention we have representatives today from hsa, from dcyf, from the puc and dpw in case there are any questions. ms. simmons. >> good morning, supervisors. i appreciate the efforts of supervisor chiu with this legislation. we work closely with his office to try to get the framework right and to come up with something that we all felt was workable, and i think we've accomplished that. the role my office will play is to staff this group in all matters to provide the year-end reports and to sort of be the, i guess the point person in leading the departments to come up with the coordinated efforts around workforce while trying to maintain folks, services that they provide to the populations that we all serve.

we also staff something called the workforce investment san francisco. so, we see thises as a companion piece to this. this is more -- i would frame it more like the internal part of the wisf which has a variety of stakeholders including labor, education and business leaders. so, this, this body here will actually complement that, that work nicely. in addition, the revisions with the cbo group i think are -- we are in support of that as well. we work with most of the nonprofits that are doing workforce out in the community. so, the ability to have their voice is needed at a level where we can deal with funding issues, programmatic issues, and any other kind of opportunities that we see are viable for the workforce. so, all that said, we're very supportive of the legislation and look forward to it as it proceeds through the process. >> thank you, ms. simmons.

i want to thanks your work and your staff's work. it has been challenging in years to figure out how to coordinate this better. i appreciate all the work of all the outside stakeholders working with our departments in moving this forward. >> all right. >> so, colleagues, unless there are any questions to rhonda or other city departments, i'd like to open it up to public comment. >> all right, thank you. >> why don't we open it up to any public comment. easy enough. and again, i want to thank the nonprofit providers who worked with us and really months ago brought this to our attention of something we need to move forward with. and with that, madam clerk -- i mean, i guess madam chair, we want to close public comment and then hopefully move this forward. >> okay, thank you. so, public comment is closed at this time. [gavel] >> and president chiu, thank you so much for leading the effort on this opportunity for -- to ensure that many of our programs are working together,

especially our workforce programs. that was one of the frustrations i had when i first started as a supervisor last year, just trying to understand the numerous job programs and opportunities and how they all work together and how i could make sure that constituents in my district had access to these opportunities. so, i was meeting with different department heads and i was sending them to the puc, sending them to dpw, talking to rhonda. rhonda was sending job announcements to me and things were kind of all over the place. and the ability to try and work together and make sure that all of these areas, opportunities that exist all over our city are coordinated so that they are easily to access from the residents of our city is just really to be commended. and i appreciate the work that rhonda simmons has consistently tried to do to work with all these various layers. i know it's not been easy with the very limited staff, but i think we're on the right path.

when we think about employment opportunities in san francisco in general, we think about -- well, i know that there are job opportunities at the airport, job opportunities in hetch hetchy. job opportunities not just within san francisco, but outside of san francisco. how do we ensure that there is a more coordinated effort, that we're all working together, that folk who are attending high schools in san francisco have a pipeline to get to these employment opportunities, that folks in various places that watch people work around their communities and wondering, how can i get that job? how can i have that opportunity? i mean, this is definitely taking us a step forward in the right direction and i'm happy to work with you on this. of course, happy to add my name as a co-sponsor, but more importantly, willing to participate in any way that i can to make sure that this is successful. so, thank you for your leadership, president chiu. are there any other comments from any other members of the committee? okay.

seeing no comments, do we have a motion on this particular item? >> so moved. >> okay. item is moved and without objection, without objection, this item passes. [gavel] >> thank you. madam clerk, can you please call the next item? >> item number 2 is an ordinance electing to study the feasibility of implementing a community choice ag he re gaytion program for the benefit of electric customers in san francisco through an agreement with marin clean energy. >> okay. i think we have supervisor avalos is expected to be joining us. okay. is there someone here from mea to present? ms. hale -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay. so, do we want to give folks a little bit of time?

>> [inaudible]. >> okay, come on up. >> we're just in the adjacent office. sore by that. [speaker not understood]. yeah, so, i'm with mce, [speaker not understood] and i wanted to give you a little update on our program and then answer any questions you might have about the ordinance that's been presented and kind of next steps we might contemplate. our program has been up and running since 2010. we're currently serving about 75% of the customer base throughout all of the cities and towns of marin and the county of marin. we are also in the city of richmond serving about a little over 75% of the customer base there as well. we have three energy products that we offer to customers. we have the light green product which is 50% renewable, the 100% renewable product which is deep green, and we've just launched a third project which is called [speaker not

understood] 100% local program that's tied to a local installation that's going to be built in our community in the next 12 months and will be available to customers in 2015. we have folks signing up for that now. so, those are the three options that exist for customers. currently, our rates are competitive with the increment utility. we are providing a cost saving to all of our customers, residential and commercial, for our products. and it is more than double the amount of renewable content for the default light green product. we have -- we've done a number of cost comparisons for customers that are now public. the novali school district is saving 10% by being with us this year. the contra costa county school district and richmond is saving a little more than that on an annual basis. the city of san rafael is

saving $40,000 this year by being our customer. and there are a number of other examples if you're interested in rate comparisons. we're really pleased we're able to offer competitive product that is more renewable. the other thing that's worth noting is that the county of marin has had a lot to do with the launch of this program, initially launched the program with a goal towards achieving greenhouse gas reductions. and they just completed a greenhouse gas inventory last month and found that they had achieved the greenhouse gas targets that had been set up in 2002, eight years ahead of schedule. and a big part of that was tied to the energy product that they're getting from mce, our energy product has an emission rate that's 19% lower than the incumbent utility. so, those are some of the basic programmatic components. we also have an energy efficiency program that is very active in the multi-family

sector. we're really looking at untapped sectors that haven't been served yet by the incumbent utility. the multi-family program does energy audits and retro he fits and also offers an ongoing repayment program for customers that want to do deeper building retrofits in their homes, businesses, or in multi-family units. so, really excited about that program. and then the last thing i want to talk about is our local build out. we're doing a lot to procure from power supply -- in california we have a lot of contracts in our portfolio. 25 contracts to be exact. many of those -- most of those are of california-based suppliers such as calpine, recurrent, edf is building a project for us in kings valley right now under a project labor agreement, i should mention. that will be 30 megawatts and that will be coming online in the next year. as far as local projects, we're working with the richmond port to build a one megawatt sewer

facility that we will own. this will be the first project that is part of our portfolio as an owned project. we're also working on a [speaker not understood] shade structure at a nonprofit organization, a research facility in novato called [speaker not understood] institute. we have a number of feed and tariff projects that are in the hopper. we have one that was built over a year ago at the san rafael airport, one megawatt project on 48 airport hangars in san rafael. we have three other feed and tariff projects that are very close to being finalized. one will be feeding our socials program. we have over 2000 net energy metering customers and we pay a premium to customers that are in that program. we actually allow them to cash out each year if they generate more than they use, we will mail them a check. these are some of the highlights of the program. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> colleague, are there any questions? no?

okay. thank you, thanks for coming today. okay, we're going to open this item up to -- ms. hale, do you have any comments at all? okay -- >> [inaudible]. >> i'm available for questions. >> mr. freed? >> jason freed, lafco staff. i just wanted to come up -- the local agency formation commission and its review of how we can get a cca program up and running. this is a request that was done by the board of supervisors back in '07 to have us be the ones to help give some options to how we get this program up and running. and joining another program is an option considering that the sfpuc commission back in august of last year decided to stop doing any work on getting the program for the folks. as you heard from our representative from marin, it is a great way for greenhouse gas emission reductions -- they have -- their portfolio is

lower than pa knee's portfolio. for trying to hit our goal in san francisco through the climate action strategy plan, while this doesn't get us to the 100%, the product is not 100% renewable, it still would get us closer and get us that much better than we currently are today. so, this is one of the things we can look at and lafco will continue to look for other options as time comes. >> thank you. mr. freed, do you know who marin's distributor is? >> i believe that they're -- i would yield to marin -- i know they originally started off with shell like we were going to do, but they now have more than 10 other distributors that are looking at diversifying their portfolio in great man an. ~ manage. i can yield to dawn. >> our distributor is pg&e. they continue to do all the transmission and distribution. the lines men of pg&e continue to do the same work for our customers that they did before our service. so, that's how the distribution is handled. >> thank you.

okay, i'm going to open this up to public -- oh,supervisor tang. >> i had a question maybe i guess for -- supervisor avalos isn't here. maybe jason, mr. freed, can answer. i know that we are -- the legislation before us is just an ordinance or a [speaker not understood] study for the feasibility. so, i just wanted to know, i mean, there will be other approvals, i'm sure, that will have to come before either the board here or through puc. and, so, i wanted to know if we were to successfully be able to elect to study the feasibility of implementing a cca program, what would that cost look like and where those funds will be coming from? >> that was one of the things that was actually before this meeting today. i was talking with [speaker not understood] exactly what the cost would be and how much it would be. we're still trying to figure out those exact numbers. there was a third option, although she did not mention [speaker not understood]. lafco has a special fund for cca activities. so, there is the potential that it would come out of that fund,

which is just to be fair, that fund comes out of the sfpuc but is dedicate ford lafco's discretion to use. so, there is some possibility of us paying for lafco paying for that, although i can't commit because we haven't had that discussion. we have a meeting next week and that is going to be one of the items on the agenda to have the discussion whether or not we could fund once we have a better idea of the exact costs would be on this program. >> and then are there any other approvals in addition to the ordinance that we are passing potentially at the board? are there any other approvals to allow us to be able to go and do this feasibility study? [multiple voices] >> i would have to yield to the city attorney or to the city process because as a lafco representative, i don't represent the city on this step. i would yield to them to say what the process is. my understanding is this would go through the board process. depending how many votes it gets, the mayor's approval or not approval, that would be the [speaker not understood]. it would still have to come bag before any program is launched. [speaker not understood].

it would go through the board and the sfpuc would have to at that point both agree to do -- moving a program forward if we were to go down this model. but the feasibility study would give us an idea of what it would take to actually do that. >> um-hm. and so, then, in terms of the marin side, was there any sort of approval that has to take place on their part for us to be able to do the feasibility study? >> i would yield to the representative from marin to answer that part. >> our board has not yet set policy for how we might expand to community the size of san francisco. we do have policy and a process set for communities that are within 30 miles of our jurisdiction and have a customer base of 40,000 or less. and we have a couple of pending [speaker not understood] from surrounding communities including the county of napa, city of albany, [speaker not understood] for membership along those lines. that process is pretty well defined and clear, but our

board has not yet set a process for what we are calling special consideration communities, which are communities that would be further than 30 miles away from us and have a customer base larger than 40,000. our board knishates the discussions about what types of -- what type of process would be used and if there would be any different parameters applied to a community of that size. in order to do so, i think our board is waiting until there is a formal request from the community to do that, to spend time and do that exploration. i think that -- i can tell you how we handle a request for an affiliate member because that process is defined. typically what happens is we receive a letter from the governing body of the city or county and then he we -- our board considers whether expansion to that community would allow us to achieve our,

our objectives of greenhouse gas reductions, renewable installations, renewable, energy efficiency. and if that threshold is met, then we ask the board to approve the membership request subject to a quantitative analysis. after that's approved by the board we enter into a contract with the city or county to pay for the cost of the quantitative analysis so that that is not impacting our existing customer base. the cost of that quantitative analysis is with the city of richmond, for example, was 40,000. for a community the size of san francisco it would likely be substantially more than that and there may be many other factors that need to be considered. but that's a reference point for the city of richmond. after that study is done, really, the goal of that study is inward looking study for [speaker not understood] to determine if the condition that of community would be net positive tim or net negative, how it would be impacting

customer base, allow reduction or create a rate increase. based on that information if the quantitative study comes back looking net positive, then we proceed with adding the community. and already action needed at that point is for the community to ask the required cca ordinance watching the cca program and requesting formal membership in the program. we'd need to revise our implementation plan to add the new community and the signature page and we formally add a new director to our board of directors from that community so that they can sit on the board and participate in decision making and policy setting going forward. so, that's the process that's set up for affiliate members. i should also mention at the point for that membership occurs there are no other costs that the community is asked to pay for. at that point m kirk kerkorian -- mce takes care of all the marketing procurements, reserve cost of all those costs recovered by mce after

membership occurs. so, i just want to emphasize that i spelled out the process for smaller communities. the process for a larger community may be different, may be more costly, but that's something that our board would likely be willing to take up if a formal request was made. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay, we'd like to open this item up for public comment. i have two speaker cards. jed holtz man and haley peterson. thank you, chair breed and members of the board ~. i'm here today representing 350 san francisco, local grassroots climate advocacy organization as well as san francisco clean energy advocates who has been working with folk on the board as well as in lafco on getting a strong clean power [speaker t